|
On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa.
Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes.
Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful.
|
On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here?
i am telling you here, very serious. if you end up with 10 females and me with none i'll do what ever i can to reverse the situation. and i mean what ever it takes.
|
On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful.
Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes?
Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries.
But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
|
In the UK, it seems almost anything that can be proven as "human rights" is viable as a legal reason. The courts, from what I've read, are dangerously liberal. I don't have a problem with gay rights or anti-discrimination laws, but this human rights defense needs to have a line drawn before it gets even more out of hand. Can't wait for a sharia law execution be dependable as a human right.
|
On December 19 2011 05:57 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful. Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes? Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries. But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too.
What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so.
The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one.
But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
|
On December 19 2011 06:05 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:57 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful. Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes? Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries. But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too. What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so. The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one. But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
Thanks for injecting some reason into this thread. It's legitimately depressing that so many people here occupy the absurd position you're responding to.
|
On December 19 2011 00:19 Nightfall.589 wrote:Two reasons. 1. Kids occasionally getting married off to cult leaders. 2. Mainstream religious organisations feel insecure about anything besides the concept of heterosexual monogamous marriage.
I think it has a lot more to do with #1 than #2. I don't care what an adult chooses to do. If a man wants to hollow out a tree and go to town on it then let him. The problem is that polygamists groups indoctrinate (brainwash) their kids into going along with it and there are countless stories of abuse, forced marriages, and rapes (directed at boys and girls) that happen.
On December 19 2011 06:05 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:57 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful. Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes? Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries. But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too. What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so. The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one. But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
That sounds like a forever alone perspective. There are millions of girl on the planet who I wouldn't have sex with on their best day and FAR less I'd be willing to spend the rest of my life with.
The idea that polygamy is illegal to have a fair shot of getting women is is believe it or not somewhat historically accurate. Anthropologists teach this fairly commonly.
It really has next to nothing to do with the rights of the parents and everything to do with the rights of the kids.
|
Okay, I might have phrased my arguments wrong. But here is the point I'm trying to make:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Legalization
"Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family."
I tried to make this argument with the "house slaves" thing.
|
On December 19 2011 01:50 Tien wrote:
It's illegal because you get a lot of single parent raised kids which isn't a good thing.
I don't like how this is getting completely ignored and everyone is focusing on distributing the sex around. THINK OF THE CHILDREN DAMNIT!
Although i think the opposite of whatever insanity Haemonculus is saying is likely true, it's still completely secondary and unimportant compared to the impact polygamy has on children.
|
On December 19 2011 00:24 Cubu wrote:
I think this goes against the nature of what marriage is truely supposed to be, a formal union between a man and a woMAN, not woMEN.
Maybe in your narrow minded, ignorant world view it is.
|
I've met a guy in Yunnan China who had two wives. It's certainly workable if it's consensual.
|
On December 19 2011 00:21 theBALLS wrote:Not for Islam. Up to 4 wives you can have, at least in my side of the globe.
This is, to me, the entire point of why polygamy should be illegal. Not because of a few rich dudes getting all the women, not because marriage is "supposed" to be between two people, but because it springs from non-equality between genders. Now, just look at this thread. How many people just assumed that polygamy implied a man having several wives? I don't care if it interferes with our view of this concept called "marriage", but I do care if we promote dominant males and a return to archaic values of what makes a house great and what doesn't.
Also, there is sex enough for everybody to go around. Why should we let some bored white millionaire hoard it in his modern age dragon roost?
And just to make sure everybody gets me here, I wasn't bashing Islam. I accept religions and people can believe what they will, even though Odinism is just retarded. My point was, that polygamy almost never implies that a women has more than one man.
|
Well if most women marry one guy, thus making many guys single, can't they marry one woman?
Anyways, I think everyone here is talking about one man with more women. But what about x men with y women, where x+y>=2.
EDIT:
Anyways, I don't think it could work, though. I think our species don't work that way and jealousy would ruin polygamy.
|
On December 19 2011 06:05 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 05:57 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:53 Haemonculus wrote:On December 19 2011 05:45 Greentellon wrote:On December 19 2011 05:37 liberal wrote:On December 19 2011 05:32 Greentellon wrote:
Polygame leads to loads of young men being denied having a woman. What if something like up to 40% of men are denied a companion because there simply aren't enough free women?
Lots of anger and frustration. Not good for society stability. A man who has no family to take care of and no chance of getting such is a man that has VERY much free time to plot "what is wrong with this society". He will seek others of his kind and will do something about it. So you are saying women should be forced to settle for men they don't want so that the men don't start killing people? Are you people even serious here? Yes. Do not underestimate the human stupidity and instinct. Especially of horny, angry and frustrated men. You can see what the tribal culture has done to womens rights in Africa. Again, you're all seemingly working with the very flawed assumption that if given the opportunity, 50% of us will decide to marry the same few rich dudes. Would some women do this? Probably. Enough so that there are millions of "undeserving" bachelors out there? Highly doubtful. Wouldn't the whole point of removing polygamys illegality be that many women could be married to some few rich dudes? Also, another argument against would be to prevent the abuse of women that are brought as "house slaves" from less-developed countries to modern countries. But I guess you want that second scenario to be allowed too. What I'm arguing against in this thread is the assumptions that all men are fuckin' entitled to mates regardless of personal merit, that violence is justified in meeting that entitlement, and that women, (or at least half of us apparently) care for nothing more than money and if given the choice would all marry the same old rich guy, and that only state-imposed laws are preventing us from doing so. The point of allowing polygamy would be to allow people already living in polyamorous relationships a sense of legitimacy and the legal benefits of marriage. Now personally I find marriage an outdated concept to begin with, and feel that people wanting to be in relationships with more than one person, (regardless of gender) should be able to do so without fear of social stigma. I'm no economist, and I have no idea how to reconcile legal benefits, taxes, etc. No clue how to touch that one. But seriously, listen to yourselves. "Polygamy is illegal so that we have a fair shot at womens!" "If you had 10 womens I had none, I would (implication of extremely violent measures) to get them from you." "Womens would all marry the same dude if we let them, and that wouldn't be fair to us mens!"
as i say in my earlier posts, your whole reasoning/logic is based on what marriage has achieved so far. you can't see past it and how would the lack of it would affect/change you.
i gave an example of a worse (not really) case scenario and you're already trippin' about your value as a woman and about your ability to make choises. you have those choices because 'marriage' allowed you to, trained you to, taught you to.
if you would've lived in a polygamy driven world, your father/mother/school would teach you things way differently.
|
House slaves, really? What exactly is it about marriage that enables such a practice?
And again, I agree that some of these arguments make sense in a historical context. Taking a look at the Reynolds case, we're looking at 1878. Aside from marriage, what was a woman's option for supporting herself?
Only what, 52% of all adults in this country are married today? Why do we still insist that the "husband-wife-pair" is the "staple" of modern society?
|
On December 19 2011 06:16 Greentellon wrote:Okay, I might have phrased my arguments wrong. But here is the point I'm trying to make: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#LegalizationShow nested quote +"Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family." I tried to make this argument with the "house slaves" thing.
That quote is exactly the mindset of many jurists back then who needed to justify undemocratic policies. They use words like "Western history" and "social structure" but ignore the fact that restricting freedoms just to preserve a comfortable existing social structure is the exact antithesis of liberalism. By trying to protect their narrow idea of democracy and freedom they are destroying its basic principles.
Edit: And the social implications of the effect of polygamy on children does not hold water here. The state can choose to promote traditional families, but an outright ban on associations between individuals is undemocratic at its core.
|
There is something I don't understand.
I am (almost) certain adultery is not a crime in the UK. I am also certain there is no law forbidding you to host whoever you choose under your roof.
So why should this woman be deported. Unless they tried to marry, is there a fuck police going around to determine who is polygamous? did they bring themselves to court to prove a point?
|
Edit: Actually, no, had enough of internet debates, no one listens to anyone anyway.
|
On December 19 2011 00:17 mdb wrote:
I wonder why polygamy is illegal
Your question reminds me of the late great Hitch -- as in Christopher Hitchens, not the semi-magical fictionalPUA played by Will Smith.
![[image loading]](http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2011/12/16/11/enhanced-buzz-27535-1324053506-104.jpg)
It's not a comprehensive answer, but it introduces the perspective that polygamy is almost always associated with a belief system that includes the ownership or repression of women.
Polygamy isn't necessarily 'amoral' between consenting adults such as the OP, but the reality is most polygamy exists in communities were women are considered sub-human.
|
On December 19 2011 06:40 Defacer wrote:Your question reminds me of the late great Hitch -- as in Christopher Hitchens, not the semi-magical fictionalPUA played by Will Smith. It's not a comprehensive answer, but it introduces the perspective that polygamy is almost always associated with a belief system that includes the ownership or repression of women. Polygamy isn't necessarily 'amoral' between consenting adults such as the OP, but the reality is most polygamy exists in communities were women are considered sub-human.
So what is the answer for why in a society where women have numerous rights and resources for independence, polygamy is illegal? Why would you restrict such a woman's right to choose for herself? You can argue that in your opinion that the woman has self-esteem issues and made a wrong choice that led to her repression (even if consenting) etc., but I hope you see the problem in a government banning individual choices because they think those choices are stupid or wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
